Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On the other hand, Shri. Hitesh Shah, Ld. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. In respect of the issue that credit was disallowed on the ground that input service distributor, issued invoices in respect of services received prior to registration as input service distributor, he submits that appellant availed the Cenvat credit against invoices issued by their other unit as input service distributor. As per the service tax (registration special category of person) Rules, 2005 under Rule 2(c) it is provided that input services distributor shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (m) of the Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As per the Rule 3 of said Rules, 2004, input service distributor shall make an application to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in such a form as may be specified, by notification, by Board for registration within the period of 30 days of the commencement of business or 16th day of June 2005 whichever is later. In view of the above provisions the appellant should have obtained registration prior to commencement of the business or 16th day of June 2005 whichever is later but appellant failed to do so therefore credit which they passed on under input service distributor invoices is not correct and legal, therefore appellant is not entitled for the credit. He also referred to Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, which provides, input service distributor may distribute Cenvat Credit in respect of service tax paid on the input service to its manufacture unit or unit providing output service. In view of this provisions, service tax paid on input services can be distributed in respect of service tax paid on input service. Since there is statutory provisions for distributing services, as in the present case, services which received prior to the registration cannot be distributed subsequently to the registration because the services received prior to the registration does not covered by the provisions of distribution of services. He submits that as per sub Rule (10) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, It is provided that input service provider shall furnish half yearly return to the Jurisdictional Superintendent not later than last day of the manufacture following half year period. In this regard it is his submission that as per the said half yearly return input service distributor is required to declare details such as opening balance, credit of service tax received, credit of service tax distributed, closing balance etc. In view of the above details return to be submitted by input service distributor, which contains the details such as opening balance and receipt of service tax to be distributed. In the present case, since at the time of registration by input service distributor, the service tax received earlier cannot be considered as opening balance therefore the same could not have been distributed, in other words data in returns can be shown and submitted only in respect of services received on or after registration as input service distributor, for this reason also input service credit relate to the service received by the input services distributors prior to registration is not eligible to be distributed to the appellant, therefore appellant has wrongly availed the Cenvat credit. He submits that prior to registration whatsoever services were received are not governed by the provision of input service distributor therefore registration obtained after date of receipt of services cannot be made retrospective effect and therefore services received prior to date of registration cannot be regularized by registration. It is his submission that if it is allowed that distribution of the credit and availement thereof for the service tax paid on the services received prior to the registration whole purpose of statutory provisions for distribution of service shall become redundant, this is not the intention of the law. Registration of input service distributor shall cover all the services received and distributed during the period which is after the input service distributors registration is obtained. Therefore, in the present case admittedly the services which were received prior to the date of registration as input service distributors were distributed after registration, the same is neither eligible for the distribution nor the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit in respect of wrongly distributed service. Ld A.R. placed reliance on following judgments.:

[ inserted vide Notification No. 35/2007 - CE(NT), dated 14-09-2007 ] From the above rule, it is observed that the appellant being manufacturer can avail the Cenvat credit on the, amongst documents, invoices issued by input service distributors under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In the present case the appellant has availed credit on invoices issued by the input service distributors under Rule 4A, therefore the documents on which credit was taken is the documents covered under the above rule therefore invoices received by the appellant is not under dispute. As regard the input service distributor they are supposed to take credit on invoices issued by provider of input service. In the present case this is also not under dispute that the input service distributor has taken credit on the invoices issued by the service provider. Therefore the documents i.e. invoices issued by input service distributor could not be said to have been issued illegally. Above provisions also does not provide any restriction clause that the credit is not allowed in respect of invoices issued by input service distributors in respect of service received by them prior to registration as input service distributor, therefore we are of the view that documents issued by input service distributors and availment of cenvat credit by the appellant on such documents cannot be found fault. We also observed that on the part of the appellant there is no contravention or violation of availment of Cenvat Credit for the reason that invoices on which Cenvat Credit was availed is valid and has not been held invalid. Input service was received by the appellant, input service covered by the said invoices has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable final product. In these facts, we find no fault or contravention of the provisions on the part of the appellant therefore Cenvat credit, irrespective any discrepancy, if any found on the part of the input service distributor, Cenvat Credit to the appellant cannot be denied on the ground that input service distributor have received services prior to the obtaining registration as input service distributors. We have gone through the judgments relied upon by both sides. We find that identical issue has been dealt in the judgments of M/s. Dagger Forst Tools Ltd (supra), wherein this Tribunal held as under

 6.2?Input service distribution is a facility granted to a manufacturer/service provider who operates from a number of premises. There is no restriction under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, with regard to the period for availing Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid. In other words, a manufacturer/input service provider can avail Cenvat credit of the Service Tax paid irrespective of any time limitation. The only condition to be satisfied is that they should have paid the Service Tax prior to availing the credit. So long as this condition is satisfied, there is no time-limit prescribed in the Rule within which the Cenvat credit has to be taken. If that be so, there is no reason why in the case of input service distributor alone, a restriction should be placed with respect to availment of Cenvat credit i.e. input service distributor is permitted to distribute only taxes paid on or after registration. Such a restriction is totally unwarranted and is not provided for in the law. Therefore the order passed by the lower Appellate Authority is not in accordance with the law and the same is liable to be set aside.

In view of the above judgments, we find that in the case where credit was taken even without obtaining the input service distributor registration by head office and without following procedure laid down for said purpose, the credit has been allowed on the ground that registration and issuance of input service distributor invoices is procedural requirements. We agree with these propositions for the reason that important aspect for availing the credit is that service which has been provided by the service provider, it should have service tax paid character, invoices as against sale of service should be tax paid. The registration and issuance of input service distributor invoices is merely a procedural requirement. In this procedure neither input service distributor makes any payment of service tax nor utilized credit for payment of any duty. Procedure for input service distributor is only, in order to maintain co-relation between the purchase of service and distribution thereof to the unit of the registered person who are under same entity. As per the facts of the present case, the case of the appellant is on better footing for the reason that they have availed cenvat credit on the valid invoices issued by input service distributors. As regard the reliance on various judgments by the Ld. A.R. ,we found that in the case of Showa India (P) Ltd. (supra), the fact was that appellant availed the Cenvat Credit against invoices issued and services received were prior to their Central Excise registration. However in the present case the fact is entirly different that the appellant was very much registered with the Central Excise and credit was availed on the invoices issued after appellants registration and services received and used was also during the period when the appellant was registered with the Central Excise, therefore facts of the both the cases are entirely different, hence the said judgment cannot be applied in the present case. As regard the Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.(supra) case, we find that the said judgment is on the issue of invoices issued by the dealer without registration on which credit was taken. In the said judgment, this Tribunal has held that credit cannot be availed on the invoices issued by non registered dealer. In the present case, the invoices issued by input service distributor is in the capacity registered of input service distributor. Therefore facts are different firstly it relates to the unregistered dealer and secondly receipt of inputs and dealers are different entities. In the present case the input service distributor is not different entity, it is part of the same entity and invoices were issued only after obtaining registration therefore facts of this case are entirely different, hence the Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd (supra) judgment cannot be made applicable in present case. As regard various judgments. Eagle Flask Industries Limited and Hari Chand Shri Gopal (supra) cases on the issue that condition provided for availing any benefit has to be strictly complied with, in absence of the same, benefit provided under scheme cannot be extended to the assesse. As we discussed above, in the present case the appellant has availed Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by the input service distributor after obtaining the registration, therefore the invoices on which credit was taken are valid documents. Since in our view there is no even procedural lapse on the part of the appellant, Cenvat credit taken on the invoices issued by registered input service distributor is correct and legal, hence the judgments cited by the Ld. A.R. are not relevant in the facts of the present case. In view of our above discussions, we are of the considered view that appellant has correctly availed the Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by input service distributors and we do not find any fault. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant.